Confederate Memorials and Monuments - what history do they represent?

[Asclepias]

They represent American history. The good, the bad, the ugly.

Removing them the way they are doing is stupid. Let each county vote on what they want to do. Caving to fascist thugs because they are bullying people into it is wrong and sets a dangerous example.

Are people just now figuring out that American history includes slaves? Cause that's how it seems. Why didn't they call for the removal of these statues years ago?

They did call for their removal. Where have you been?

If they represent american history then put them in a museum where they belong.

The communist have for years.

Thats pretty much my point. Thanks for agreeing.

 

[Bush92]

The guy who carved Mt. Rushmore was fired, and hit upon a sure fire way to stay working for the rest of his life, by proposing the carving on Stone mountain. It was a huge success, because the old South was digging in their heels big time with Jim Crow laws, designed to keep blacks subservient forever. The racial world depicted in "To Kill a Mockingbird" was real. It became much worse, during the depression, because now blacks were entering factories and leaving the fields. That made them an economic threat to the white man. There really was a sign at a county line in Georgia reading, "N***R, don't let the sun go down", implying that he was in danger of being lynched in that county after sunset. I saw it. In the 1950's, if a black man did not shift his gaze to the sidewalk in front of him, when you passed him, it was considered an "uppity" black, looking for trouble. Outside of Atlanta, there was an affluent suburb down Ponce de Leon Avenue which got the first electrified trolleys in the city so that the affluent households there could fill their houses with black servants, who would all be back to the other side of town by trolley when it got dark. I could go on, and on, but the racism I saw growing up was almost as bad of the worst that South Africa ever had.

You pretty much nailed it. After centuries of white male affirmative action they had competition that actually knew the job better than them and worked at a lower rate..

So they should have been unemployed?

Why not? We had to deal with it when whites hired other whites even though the Blacks knew the job better.

What jobs were that? Please give me an example of the African architecture, metal smithing, or engineering that they brought from Africa that was anywhere on par with the Enlightenment and Renaissance ideas brought to the New World by European's?

That post shows your abject lack of education. Blacks brought you out of the Dark Ages and taught you architecture reading, science etc. You do realize carbonized steel was invented in Africa several centuries before europe figured it out. My guess is that Africans taught them.

Lol. More revisionist history. Arab world was Middle East in terms of weapons grade steel...and they most likely stole it from the Greeks. Not Black African's living in mud huts, selling each other into slavery.

 

[eagle1462010]

 

[Bush92]

They represent American history. The good, the bad, the ugly.

Removing them the way they are doing is stupid. Let each county vote on what they want to do. Caving to fascist thugs because they are bullying people into it is wrong and sets a dangerous example.

Are people just now figuring out that American history includes slaves? Cause that's how it seems. Why didn't they call for the removal of these statues years ago?

They did call for their removal. Where have you been?

If they represent american history then put them in a museum where they belong.

The communist have for years.

Thats pretty much my point. Thanks for agreeing.

So your a Black communist? Thanks for admitting you support an ideology responsible for death of millions.

 

[Asclepias]

You pretty much nailed it. After centuries of white male affirmative action they had competition that actually knew the job better than them and worked at a lower rate..

So they should have been unemployed?

Why not? We had to deal with it when whites hired other whites even though the Blacks knew the job better.

What jobs were that? Please give me an example of the African architecture, metal smithing, or engineering that they brought from Africa that was anywhere on par with the Enlightenment and Renaissance ideas brought to the New World by European's?

That post shows your abject lack of education. Blacks brought you out of the Dark Ages and taught you architecture reading, science etc. You do realize carbonized steel was invented in Africa several centuries before europe figured it out. My guess is that Africans taught them.

Lol. More revisionist history. Arab world was Middle East in terms of weapons grade steel...and they most likely stole it from the Greeks. Not Black African's living in mud huts, selling each other into slavery.

Not really the point of the thread and I have educated you before like the Africans did the greeks. I have no issue with you using fake history as a pacifier.

 

[Asclepias]

They represent American history. The good, the bad, the ugly.

Removing them the way they are doing is stupid. Let each county vote on what they want to do. Caving to fascist thugs because they are bullying people into it is wrong and sets a dangerous example.

Are people just now figuring out that American history includes slaves? Cause that's how it seems. Why didn't they call for the removal of these statues years ago?

They did call for their removal. Where have you been?

If they represent american history then put them in a museum where they belong.

The communist have for years.

Thats pretty much my point. Thanks for agreeing.

So your a Black communist? Thanks for admitting you support an ideology responsible for death of millions.

I guess I am. Youre welcome.

 

[eagle1462010]

 

[Bush92]

So they should have been unemployed?

Why not? We had to deal with it when whites hired other whites even though the Blacks knew the job better.

What jobs were that? Please give me an example of the African architecture, metal smithing, or engineering that they brought from Africa that was anywhere on par with the Enlightenment and Renaissance ideas brought to the New World by European's?

That post shows your abject lack of education. Blacks brought you out of the Dark Ages and taught you architecture reading, science etc. You do realize carbonized steel was invented in Africa several centuries before europe figured it out. My guess is that Africans taught them.

Lol. More revisionist history. Arab world was Middle East in terms of weapons grade steel...and they most likely stole it from the Greeks. Not Black African's living in mud huts, selling each other into slavery.

Not really the point of the thread and I have educated you before like the Africans did the greeks. I have no issue with you using fake history as a pacifier.

Such an advanced people.

 

[Asclepias]

Why dont they honor this dudes request?

“I think it wiser, not to keep open the sores of war but to follow the examples of those nations who endeavored to obliterate the marks of civil strife, to commit to oblivion the feelings engendered.”
-robert e lee

 

[Asclepias]

Those are in another country. We cant tell them what to do even if there was proof they were built by slaves.

 

[Asclepias]

Why not? We had to deal with it when whites hired other whites even though the Blacks knew the job better.

What jobs were that? Please give me an example of the African architecture, metal smithing, or engineering that they brought from Africa that was anywhere on par with the Enlightenment and Renaissance ideas brought to the New World by European's?

That post shows your abject lack of education. Blacks brought you out of the Dark Ages and taught you architecture reading, science etc. You do realize carbonized steel was invented in Africa several centuries before europe figured it out. My guess is that Africans taught them.

Lol. More revisionist history. Arab world was Middle East in terms of weapons grade steel...and they most likely stole it from the Greeks. Not Black African's living in mud huts, selling each other into slavery.

Not really the point of the thread and I have educated you before like the Africans did the greeks. I have no issue with you using fake history as a pacifier.

Such an advanced people.

I agree.

 

[Marion Morrison]

My initial thought was - they're a legacy of the civil war, put up by the losing side...and no "big deal" beyond that history. But I was wrong.

Removing historical monuments is always a "slippery slope", but so is erecting those monuments. For example, in Russia - the many monuments to Stalin (torn down when communism fell) or in Iraq, the many monuments to Sadaam (torn down too).

There IS something similar in the Confederate Monuments, compared to Stalin or Hussein or others. That is WHY they were erected.

Most were erected between the 1890's and 1920's - more then 30 years after the Civil War ended. They coincided with the rise in legislation essentially reinstalling slavery through a set of laws that segregated black people from white people, prevented them from exercising their right to vote, and saw a huge increase in lynchings and the reappearance of the Confederate Flag.

So what do these things REALLY represent? There has been a sustained movement to sanitize the Confederacy - to severe it from slavery and portray it as little more than a "state's rights" conflict. But you can't do that - it's inseperable from the slavery issue, as is evident by what occurred in the south AFTER the war's end.

So what are we seeking to "preserve" by keeping both that flag and those monuments on public spaces? These aren't battlefield monuments...they are monuments erected all over the country outside of historical sites. I used to be a huge Civil War buff as a kid...and I value and love history - but THIS part of the history, I was oblivious of. SHOULD we support it, in our public spaces, or retire it to Museums where it might be more fitting? This historian makes some good points.

Like The Flag, Confederate Monuments Have Been 'Severely Tainted'

JAMES COBB: Well, the great bulk of them were erected between roughly 1890 and 1920. But every time there was a sort of a racial flare up, later on, there would be a more modest surge in erecting monuments in the same way that Confederate flags started going on. State flags are being flown atop state capitals, but the 1890-1920 period is really, I think, critical because that period also saw the rise of legally mandated racial segregation and disfranchisement of black Southerners.

And in tune with that, the campaigns for passage of these segregation, disenfranchising laws involved a tremendous amount of horrific racial scapegoating. So that same period saw roughly 2,000 lynchings of black Americans. And so the thing I think people miss because it's so easy to jump on the clear connection between these monuments and slavery is that they also were sort of like construction materials in an effort to rebuild slavery.​

and

COBB: Well, I think for generations, white Southerners had maintained, despite the presence of the flag at all of these racial atrocities, had maintained that it was possible to separate heritage and hate. And I think the slaying in Charleston pretty much shattered what was left of that mythology. And there were a number of cases, a number of states, where Confederate flags were furled almost, you know, within a matter of days of that event. The next target was going to be monuments. But compared to a flag, the monuments are a bit less emotive. And they were seen like as on the second line of defense as far as the whole cult of the lost cause and the refusal to accept the idea that both the flag and the monuments were tied to slavery.


Monuments were simply less closely associated in the minds of white Southerners, in particular, with anything related directly to racial oppression. It was the flag that had been waved at the Klan rallies. You know, it's easier to hoist a flag than a bust of Stonewall Jackson. It had the much stronger visual association with racial oppression or racist hate groups than monuments did.​

and

COBB: Well, as a historian, I'll confess to a certain nervousness about sanitizing the historical landscape. But I think what we're looking at here is that these monuments, just like the flag, have been sort of seized on. And they've been so severely tainted. I think the best way to look at them upon removing them - and I think they do have to be removed from public spaces.


But I think the best way to look at them is that they're not being preserved in a museum, which is where I think they should go as a monument, but really, as an artifact because their connection with, you know, the effort to practically reinstitute slavery after the Civil War gives them an extra layer of complexity that I think most people have not been exposed to. Whereas they - in a public spot, I think they can only be divisive and a source of discord and conflict.​

That of the war between the states. Make no mistake, the North invaded the the South.

Sherman embarked upon a Hitler-ish "scorched earth" swath.

Old black people in GA are still pissed off about this.

Sherman's soldiers raped slaves and wives of Confederate soldiers.

Confederate soldiers did none of that. They were gentlemen.

That's real. That is the reality of the situation.

 

[eagle1462010]

 

[Asclepias]

My initial thought was - they're a legacy of the civil war, put up by the losing side...and no "big deal" beyond that history. But I was wrong.

Removing historical monuments is always a "slippery slope", but so is erecting those monuments. For example, in Russia - the many monuments to Stalin (torn down when communism fell) or in Iraq, the many monuments to Sadaam (torn down too).

There IS something similar in the Confederate Monuments, compared to Stalin or Hussein or others. That is WHY they were erected.

Most were erected between the 1890's and 1920's - more then 30 years after the Civil War ended. They coincided with the rise in legislation essentially reinstalling slavery through a set of laws that segregated black people from white people, prevented them from exercising their right to vote, and saw a huge increase in lynchings and the reappearance of the Confederate Flag.

So what do these things REALLY represent? There has been a sustained movement to sanitize the Confederacy - to severe it from slavery and portray it as little more than a "state's rights" conflict. But you can't do that - it's inseperable from the slavery issue, as is evident by what occurred in the south AFTER the war's end.

So what are we seeking to "preserve" by keeping both that flag and those monuments on public spaces? These aren't battlefield monuments...they are monuments erected all over the country outside of historical sites. I used to be a huge Civil War buff as a kid...and I value and love history - but THIS part of the history, I was oblivious of. SHOULD we support it, in our public spaces, or retire it to Museums where it might be more fitting? This historian makes some good points.

Like The Flag, Confederate Monuments Have Been 'Severely Tainted'

JAMES COBB: Well, the great bulk of them were erected between roughly 1890 and 1920. But every time there was a sort of a racial flare up, later on, there would be a more modest surge in erecting monuments in the same way that Confederate flags started going on. State flags are being flown atop state capitals, but the 1890-1920 period is really, I think, critical because that period also saw the rise of legally mandated racial segregation and disfranchisement of black Southerners.

And in tune with that, the campaigns for passage of these segregation, disenfranchising laws involved a tremendous amount of horrific racial scapegoating. So that same period saw roughly 2,000 lynchings of black Americans. And so the thing I think people miss because it's so easy to jump on the clear connection between these monuments and slavery is that they also were sort of like construction materials in an effort to rebuild slavery.​

and

COBB: Well, I think for generations, white Southerners had maintained, despite the presence of the flag at all of these racial atrocities, had maintained that it was possible to separate heritage and hate. And I think the slaying in Charleston pretty much shattered what was left of that mythology. And there were a number of cases, a number of states, where Confederate flags were furled almost, you know, within a matter of days of that event. The next target was going to be monuments. But compared to a flag, the monuments are a bit less emotive. And they were seen like as on the second line of defense as far as the whole cult of the lost cause and the refusal to accept the idea that both the flag and the monuments were tied to slavery.


Monuments were simply less closely associated in the minds of white Southerners, in particular, with anything related directly to racial oppression. It was the flag that had been waved at the Klan rallies. You know, it's easier to hoist a flag than a bust of Stonewall Jackson. It had the much stronger visual association with racial oppression or racist hate groups than monuments did.​

and

COBB: Well, as a historian, I'll confess to a certain nervousness about sanitizing the historical landscape. But I think what we're looking at here is that these monuments, just like the flag, have been sort of seized on. And they've been so severely tainted. I think the best way to look at them upon removing them - and I think they do have to be removed from public spaces.


But I think the best way to look at them is that they're not being preserved in a museum, which is where I think they should go as a monument, but really, as an artifact because their connection with, you know, the effort to practically reinstitute slavery after the Civil War gives them an extra layer of complexity that I think most people have not been exposed to. Whereas they - in a public spot, I think they can only be divisive and a source of discord and conflict.​

That of the war between the states. Make no mistake, the North invaded the the South.

Sherman embarked upon a Hitler-ish "scorched earth" swath.

Old black people in GA are still pissed off about this.

Sherman's soldiers raped slaves and wives of Confederate soldiers.

Confederate soldiers did none of that. They were gentlemen.

That's real. That is the reality of the situation.

The north invaded after the south attacked.

Old Black people in GA still hate the KKK and Nazis that support the confederate scumbags.

 

[eagle1462010]

The left is offended by symbols from a War where nearly 660 thousand died..............Americans.............

So.............the FEW DECIDE they will REMOVE THEM VIOLENTLY.............Desecrate them.....................because it's THEIR WAY OR THE HIGH WAY.............

Not GIVING A DAMN who DOESN'T AGREE..........................CREATING VIOLENCE when for decades nobody was saying a damn thing.................

If they cared about Democracy at all..........then these so called OFFENSIVE STATUES...........should be removed ONLY IF THE LOCAL COMMUNITY VOTES TO DO SO.................

But they must HAVE THEIR WAY...........EVEN IF THEY MUST GET VIOLENT.................

THEY CAN GO TO HELL.

 

[Asclepias]

Thats what erasers are for. Erasing mistakes, lies, and symbols of hate. Even Robert E Lee agreed with me.

 

[Marion Morrison]

Confederate soldiers never went after women, children, and slaves. The Union army under Sherman did.

True story. IMO, they were way more honorable. Erasing their history is a travesty.

 

[Asclepias]

Confederate soldiers never went after women, children, and slaves. The Union army under Sherman did.

True story. IMO, they were way more honorable.

If you honestly think anyone believes that people that raped little Black girls and sodomized Black men to make an example of them were honorable then you must be dumber than i thought.

 

[Marion Morrison]

Confederate soldiers never went after women, children, and slaves. The Union army under Sherman did.

True story. IMO, they were way more honorable.

If you honestly think anyone believes that people that raped little Black girls and sodomized Black men to make an example of them were honorable then you must be dumber than i thought.

Dumbass Asclepias, the soldiers of the Confederate army did not do that, only Sherman's army did that.

Get it right, derp!

 

[Bush92]

My initial thought was - they're a legacy of the civil war, put up by the losing side...and no "big deal" beyond that history. But I was wrong.

Removing historical monuments is always a "slippery slope", but so is erecting those monuments. For example, in Russia - the many monuments to Stalin (torn down when communism fell) or in Iraq, the many monuments to Sadaam (torn down too).

There IS something similar in the Confederate Monuments, compared to Stalin or Hussein or others. That is WHY they were erected.

Most were erected between the 1890's and 1920's - more then 30 years after the Civil War ended. They coincided with the rise in legislation essentially reinstalling slavery through a set of laws that segregated black people from white people, prevented them from exercising their right to vote, and saw a huge increase in lynchings and the reappearance of the Confederate Flag.

So what do these things REALLY represent? There has been a sustained movement to sanitize the Confederacy - to severe it from slavery and portray it as little more than a "state's rights" conflict. But you can't do that - it's inseperable from the slavery issue, as is evident by what occurred in the south AFTER the war's end.

So what are we seeking to "preserve" by keeping both that flag and those monuments on public spaces? These aren't battlefield monuments...they are monuments erected all over the country outside of historical sites. I used to be a huge Civil War buff as a kid...and I value and love history - but THIS part of the history, I was oblivious of. SHOULD we support it, in our public spaces, or retire it to Museums where it might be more fitting? This historian makes some good points.

Like The Flag, Confederate Monuments Have Been 'Severely Tainted'

JAMES COBB: Well, the great bulk of them were erected between roughly 1890 and 1920. But every time there was a sort of a racial flare up, later on, there would be a more modest surge in erecting monuments in the same way that Confederate flags started going on. State flags are being flown atop state capitals, but the 1890-1920 period is really, I think, critical because that period also saw the rise of legally mandated racial segregation and disfranchisement of black Southerners.

And in tune with that, the campaigns for passage of these segregation, disenfranchising laws involved a tremendous amount of horrific racial scapegoating. So that same period saw roughly 2,000 lynchings of black Americans. And so the thing I think people miss because it's so easy to jump on the clear connection between these monuments and slavery is that they also were sort of like construction materials in an effort to rebuild slavery.​

and

COBB: Well, I think for generations, white Southerners had maintained, despite the presence of the flag at all of these racial atrocities, had maintained that it was possible to separate heritage and hate. And I think the slaying in Charleston pretty much shattered what was left of that mythology. And there were a number of cases, a number of states, where Confederate flags were furled almost, you know, within a matter of days of that event. The next target was going to be monuments. But compared to a flag, the monuments are a bit less emotive. And they were seen like as on the second line of defense as far as the whole cult of the lost cause and the refusal to accept the idea that both the flag and the monuments were tied to slavery.


Monuments were simply less closely associated in the minds of white Southerners, in particular, with anything related directly to racial oppression. It was the flag that had been waved at the Klan rallies. You know, it's easier to hoist a flag than a bust of Stonewall Jackson. It had the much stronger visual association with racial oppression or racist hate groups than monuments did.​

and

COBB: Well, as a historian, I'll confess to a certain nervousness about sanitizing the historical landscape. But I think what we're looking at here is that these monuments, just like the flag, have been sort of seized on. And they've been so severely tainted. I think the best way to look at them upon removing them - and I think they do have to be removed from public spaces.


But I think the best way to look at them is that they're not being preserved in a museum, which is where I think they should go as a monument, but really, as an artifact because their connection with, you know, the effort to practically reinstitute slavery after the Civil War gives them an extra layer of complexity that I think most people have not been exposed to. Whereas they - in a public spot, I think they can only be divisive and a source of discord and conflict.​

That of the war between the states. Make no mistake, the North invaded the the South.

Sherman embarked upon a Hitler-ish "scorched earth" swath.

Old black people in GA are still pissed off about this.

Sherman's soldiers raped slaves and wives of Confederate soldiers.

Confederate soldiers did none of that. They were gentlemen.

That's real. That is the reality of the situation.

Sherman was a war criminal.